Arnie Gunderson Refutes TEPCO's imagination

[SpoonFed]

Gunderson's report from yesterday about TEPCOs explanation of where the iodine came from made me laugh. I just can't believe a single fact they push out. Combine that with the committee release report with the line item of isotope tests from the 14th missing that I noticed last night. This is a cover up and mega-lie-fest.

The video is here: http://vimeo.com/22586794

So to all you nuke lovers, which is it:

a) There is some funky fission going on in the pool at present, or
b) Their definitely wsa a Chernobyl size release of iodine gas that and miraculously flew up into the air during the explosions and then down through the roof of reactor building four (it still had it's roof at that point) and into the storage pools to decay for 4 weeks only to be detected recently.

Mark my words, despite the reprehensible lack of media attention at present,
it's going to be harder and harder for them to make this shit not stink.

You might think about switching sides at this point, and finally get around with siding with sanity and humanity.

That is all.

[flamingdem]

1. It's time for the pro-nuke people to take a hard look at their own humanity

and to exit the denial phase. The nuclear industry has proven itself to be extremely irresponsible and dangerous. We need to phase nuclear out forever, humanity can do better, the next generations should not be born into a world full of waste and fallout that will shorten lives and damage DNA.

[wtmusic]

5. Time for antinukes to acknowledge their ignorant, irrational fear

which is costing hundreds of thousands their lives - right now.

It's a tough step, but it's time.

[intaglio]

6. Would you like to withdraw that unexplained slander?

Or perhaps you would like to acknowledge that the ash problem of coal fired stations is only a problem where the government fetters itself to the well being of a dying industry - in this case coal generation.

This harping on how a "no nukes" stance costs more lives because of existing polluters ignores the horrific time scale over which radiation damage occurs.

Mind you apologists for the nuclear industry, such as yourself, have been planting this little canard for some time now purely for the benefit of a militarily driven industry - nuclear power. Yes coal, and to a lesser extent oil, stations produce vast quantities of pollutants but that does not excuse the lock-step worship of the nuclear industry.

Renewables can meet the energy needs of even the USA if the US citizenry can find sufficient guts to close down the 19th and mid-20th century industries that are coal and nukes.

Do not whimper that molten salt thorium reactors are safe because there are none even in the testing state, even in India

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Actually, we have the opposite.

Almost the entire fuel cycle last year was run upon de-comissioned military uranium and plutonium.

The vast majority of movement in military material was in the peaceful consumption, not production of fuels/weaponized material.

[intaglio]

14. Nuclear power generation was driven by the military

The military needed plutonium and once the cat was out of the bag about the source of "nuclear explosives"; ie the USSR developed their own bombs; nuclear piles became, officially, experimental rigs for the production of electricity. If viable power sources had really been the only driver of development then Weinburg's experiments back in the 1960s could have been carried much further. Instead the military pushed for light water reactors which produced the quantities of the plutonium they saw as necessary to the Arms Race.

The true problems of nuclear power are that there is no safe method of disposal of high level waste, not even vault burial, and no safe way to clean up after a catastophe

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Oh, absolutely, critical for plutonium production in the past.

But it's a net consumer of these materials now, not a producer, as we, and Russia draw down stockpiles.

On the waste, we disagree.

[flamingdem]

16. MOX is history after this disaster, No. 3 reactor might still blow more Pu

so we'll wait and see if smarter minds prevail

[AtheistCrusader]

17. MOX is still being happily digested in two reactors in Japan alone.

It's not a huge issue. A regular uranium rod that has been burning for several years has comparable amounts of Plutonium in it.

[flamingdem]

18. There is plenty of information about the dangers of MOX, explosion much?

---- snip

“Goto said that the MOX also has a lower melting point than the other reactor fuels. The Fukushima facility began using MOX fuel in September 2010, becoming the third plant in Japan to do so, according to MOX supplier AREVA.” D.C. Bureau March 15

Joaquin’s point on the dangers of new fuel cycles is well taken. One of the fuels of the future, MOX, has a low melting point than the other reactors at Fukushima. Maybe that’s why it had an, as of yet, unexplained hydrogen explosion in MOX fueled reactor 3. The others outlined in the note are no more assuring as a future source. Nevertheless, the nuclear industry persists in acting like it has a viable supply to meet it’s demands and promises.

“We are supposed to believe that this hydrogen explosion (first image above) at unit 3, March 14, is no biggie; of course it isn’t; it’s just a direct hit. WTF, there is a huge amount of concrete flying hundreds of meters in the air not a tin roof; the nature of the damage done by this explosion has proven to be the subject of one lie after another.” Joaquin

The dangers of unit 3 are clear:

“The No. 3 reactor is a particular concern because it is the only one of six at the plant to use a potentially volatile mix of uranium and plutonium.” ABC News, March 26

[AtheistCrusader]

19. It is not a mystery why it exploded.

Zircalloy + Water + high temps = free hydrogen. The pool boiled till some or all of the rods were exposed, and the zircalloy reacted, freeing hydrogen.

Again, this happened in reactors 1-3 as well. MOX is not required.
Yes it has a somewhat lower melting point (-427c below Uranium Dioxide). Not a significant risk in and of itself.


Plutonium dioxide
•Formula as often written: PuO2
•Hill system formula: O2Pu1
•CAS registry number: <12059-95-9>
•Formula weight: 276.063
•Class: oxide
Synonyms
•plutonium dioxide
•plutonium(IV) oxide
•plutonium oxide
Physical properties
•Colour: yellow-brown
•Appearance: crystalline solid
•Melting point: 2400°C
•Boiling point: 2800°C
•Density: 11500 kg m-3



Uranium dioxide
•Formula as often written: UO2
•Hill system formula: O2U1
•CAS registry number: <1344-57-6>
•Formula weight: 270.028
•Class: oxide
Synonyms
•uranium dioxide
•uranium(IV) oxide
•pitchblende
•uranium oxide
Physical properties
•Colour: dark brown
•Appearance: crystalline solid
•Melting point: 2827°C
•Boiling point:
•Density: 10970 kg m-3

[kristopher]

20. What were the CO2e emissions of that *entire* fuel cycle? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

21. A lot more than zero.

But it is sunk cost, until we run out of uranium and plutonium already kicking around, from those programs.

[kristopher]

22. Whether it is "sunk cost" depends on the system that is being used and created.

It is also relative to the CO2e costs of the once-through uranium cycle.

Do you advocate expanding nuclear or phasing it out?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Phasing it out.

But I am willing to see some older reactors like VY and Browns Ferry replaced with modern, safer systems, if the fuels we have will outlive current reactor consumption.

Also, keep in mind I am only speaking to US policy, I don't pretend we could force other countries like France to back away from nuclear power.

[Nihil]

24. Would you care to look at the post to which he was replying?

(Clue: It "explains" the so-called "unexplained slander")

:eyes:

[jpak]

10. The word 'Fukushima' means 'ignorant irrational anti-nuke fear' so does 'Chernobyl' in Ukrainan

yup

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Nope, I'm human, and I sleep just fine at night.

I'm going to continue supporting the safe use of at least current levels of nuclear power, until other means are ONLINE and in production in sufficent levels to support our economy.

Based on the current state of the fuel cycle wrt CO2 emission, and consumption of military uranium/plutonium material, we are best served by contiuning for now, with an eye to taking them all offline as the future warrants.

On the front end, I am also pushing conservation.

So yeah, I sleep fine.


If we need to look at increasing safety measures around domestic power plants, I'm all for that.

[flamingdem]

9. It's not safe, don't forget waste, and the industry is irresponsible and we pay for that nt

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Of course we pay.

And we insure them too. Maybe we should nationalize them. Then we have more say in the cost/safety balance without profit motive, and have more say in when to turn them off forever.

Today's waste is next gen's fuel, quite possibly. Do you want to bury casketized 'waste' or warhead pits? I'd rather burn the pits, then bury the waste.

[bananas]

12. "increasing safety measures" means turning them off

These aging reactors are a menace to society.
They are in the wear-out phase of the bathtub curve,
major catastrophes will become more and more frequent.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. According to you.

Though I agree, the Vermont Yankee, Browns Ferry and about 15 other reactors in the US are due for the scrapyards soon.

[godai]

2. I watched the video. Found it encouraging.

He stated that #3 is 'out of the woods' and #1 seems to be heading in that direction. #2 looks bad and I'll come back to that.

Regarding the #4 spent fuel pool, I'm not aware that TEPCO claims the I131 came from outside #4. If so, I'd disagree with them. #4 pool rods were exposed which, to me, can explain the I131. There is a video showing the current state of the #4 pool and it is filled with water, steaming a bit because it is still too hot. But, if this condition continues, it will cool. I don't think many informed people have issues with #4 at this point.

Getting back to #2, there's a hole somewhere in the base, therefore there's no pressure and radioactive water is leaking. This is bad. TEPCO's plan is to either recirculate that water, cooling it in the process, and gradually cooling the rods, or, sealing the leak at the bottom by pouring concrete, then setting up a more enclosed circulation of the water through a cooling process.

Will this work? I don't know but I believe that TEPCO will follow this approach and not 'bury the sucker' as flippantly suggested by the 'sky is falling' crowd.

I'm hardly a 'nuke lover' but want, for the sake of the Japanese people, for there to be a resolution to this bad situation with minimal consequences.

Edited to correct the reactor numbers...

[flamingdem]

3. They admitted it's too hot to work around the reactors and robots can't do major construction nt

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Yep, #2 has a hole in it's suppression pool, based on reports going back as far as

the day of the explosion of reactor 2's outer building walls.

I also agree that the iodine in #4's pool is likely a criticality within the pool. If the rods were exposed when the exlosion happened, there are likely loose pellets on the bottom of the pool. Not a meltdown type situation, but it makes cleanup harder.